Anheuser-Busch, Inc. (Commission decision, May 19, 1982)

Plain-English summary

An administrative law judge had vacated a citation alleging that Anheuser-Busch violated the platform-guarding standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(c)(1). The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding that the cited surfaces were platforms under the regulatory definition and ordering that the citation be affirmed. On rehearing, the court left open whether the violation should be classified as de minimis because the judge had made no findings on that issue. The Commission remanded the case to the chief administrative law judge for proceedings consistent with the court's opinions. The order does not state a penalty.

Decision snapshot

• Cited standard(s): 29 C.F.R. § 1910.23(c)(1)
• Outcome: Remanded under the court's opinions, which permitted initial findings on de minimis status.
• Key point: The surfaces were platforms covered by the guarding standard, and the court left open initial findings on whether the violation was de minimis.

Full text (OSHRC public release)

Docket No. 79-5002

ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC.

OSHRC Docket No. 79-5002

Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission

May 19, 1982

COUNSEL:

[*1]

Office of the Solicitor, USDOL

Bobbye D. Spears, Regional Solicitor, U.S. Department of Labor

A. Graham Allen, for the employer

Lewis L. Loss, President, Teamsters Local 947, for the employees

OPINION:

ORDER OF REMAND

This case is before the Commission on remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

The court reversed a decision by former Administrative Law Judge Brenton vacating a citation that alleged a violation of 29 C.F.R.

1910.23(c)(1).

The court held that the cited surfaces were "platforms" within the meaning of 29 C.F.R.

1910.21(a)(4), ordered that the citation be affirmed, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

On rehearing, the court held that because Judge Brenton had not made findings on whether the violation was de minimis, it would not consider whether the citation should be affirmed as de minimis. It stated that on remand initial findings may be made on that matter.

Donovan v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 666 F.2d 315 (8th Cir. 1981), reh'g denied, 666 F.2d 328 (1982). The case is remanded to the Chief Administrative Law Judge for further proceedings consistent with the opinions of the court.

[*2]

SO ORDERED.